[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
[Catalog View] :: [Archive] :: [Graveyard] :: [Rules] :: [Quests] :: [Wiki]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 70949)
Message
File []
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP3, MP4, PNG, SWF, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 20000 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 17785 unique user posts. View catalog

File 136977786920.jpg - (79.27KB , 500x657 , tumblr_m2wnya4x7i1r7gsdxo1_500.jpg )
70949 No. 70949 ID: d6ae01

By default, images on this site are converted to tiny 200x200 thumbnails (250 for OPs). I know that some people never hit "Expand all images", preferring to read the quest with the thumbnails as their guide.

Problem is, thumbnails are small enough that you lose some of the detail, and some art styles end up looking incomprehensible and busy, not being as eye-catching or informative as they would otherwise be.

So I propose we increase the size of thumbnails!

Rather than picking a random number, I'm using this thread to get your thoughts. How big should a thumbnail be? Should it be different sizes on different boards? Is the default size just fine? DISCUSS
>>
No. 70950 ID: c4597d

Make it automatically adjust according to the browser's size and native resolution.
>>
No. 70951 ID: 0ba4e5

Don't forget the option of different size in-thread and not-in-thread.
>>
No. 70952 ID: 19b3c3

>Is the default size just fine?
This is what I'd say.

If the thumbnail is too small and preventing you from seeing the hidden detail or danger or animation the quest author stuck in the picture? Well then load the image, you lazy person! I mean, really, if the details are important you should be looking at them.

There's also this thing >>/meep/24283 that's supposed to magically let you show full sized images on mouseover, if you'd like to try it out.
>>
No. 70954 ID: 1d8777

>>70952
Hover Zoom (Chrome)/Thumbnail Zoom Plus (Firefox) are also pretty useful in this regard.

However, I'd still love for the thumbnails to be maybe twice the width they currently are.
>>
No. 70955 ID: 185228

As someone who frequently browses internet sites on unreliable connections I would consider the current thumbnail size to be fine.

...maaaaaybe switch to 250 thumbnails across the board though. MAYBE.
>>
No. 70956 ID: 185228

Blargh, 250x250. I meant 250x250.
>>
No. 70957 ID: dcfc4c

>>70949

This is, conveniently, a question with a correct answer.

>>70952

It's this one.

For reals.

They don't need to be any bigger, they'd just take up more screen space makes threads you're scrolling past harder.

What's that? Why don't I just hide the threads I want to scroll past? Why don't you just expand the images if you want to see more detail? Detail is not what the thumbnails are even for.
>>
No. 70958 ID: f2c20c

It's fine.
>>
No. 70959 ID: d6ae01

To take a risk with actual examples...

Lucid's Onigashima quest has images which are "busy", and it's hard to tell what's going on at a glance. He uses a lot of small lines and details that get blended together somewhat as they are shrunk.

Most of Lagotrope's quests are thumbnail-friendly, combining colors and only drawing lines that need to be drawn to get the shapes the update needs to have.


The thumbnail is something you have to work around. You want to make your OP have an eye catching image that's clean and clear at 250x250, and you want your updates to look pretty decent at 200x200.

I'm surprised nobody even wants to consider a mild increase of these tiny images, even to something like 300x300



Another thing I'm wondering about is allowing images in the update text so it can be done in one single post... but at that point we're pretty much talking about using something not kusaba :V
>>
No. 70960 ID: 19b3c3

I guess I just see it as a case of if it ain't broke? And to your specific concern- no matter how large the thumbnail, you're always going to have images that lose detail when viewed at less than the intended resolution. (Unless we switch to eps format or something, or we make all thumbs so large it defeats the purpose of having them).

Also, it's probably a small concern, but the infoboxes in the wiki are currently set to link to display board thumbnails, and the table width is set to 250px. So pushing board thumbnails bigger than that would probably break that, temporarily. (It'll also inflate anything that uses the {{questart}} or {{fanart}} templates, since they direct link to thumbnails too, and don't seem to allow resizing, unlike [[image]]).

>Lagotrope's quests are thumbnail-friendly
Well, excluding the paranoia. :V

>images in the update text
You could use the icons board to jerrymander that if you wanted, probably? ...although then 'thumbnail' size would equal full size and you'd have to bother with systematic namings. Probably not worth it. It's not like there's anything wrong with an author doing several posts in series. (1/n, 2/n, ... n/n).

>Switching off kusaba
In the case of a migration, I'd be most concerned with what would happen to existing (and archived) threads.
>>
No. 70964 ID: d6ae01

>>70960
I guess that's true. there'd be a lot of stuff to fiddle with if the sizes changed, huh?

It was just something I was pondering. Though I guess "Draw your updates as if the thumbnail is the only version" is a decent thing to throw in the advice thread.

And the majority of quest images do well enough in thumbnails.
>>
No. 70969 ID: cc90a1

that one tool Dediggefede or however you spell his name made sort of just scales the image to the size of your screen which is how I do it and it is perfectly fine for me.
>>
No. 70974 ID: 4a20fa

>>70960
The wiki templates would actually be a bit happier if OP and in-thread thumbnails were the same size. IIRC there's a little bit of woolyness in them to allow for the 200 vs 250 distinction.

For my part, I care a lot more about the expanded view not fitting in the browser for some quests (Wholesome is a good example, with its massive update images); compare to how 4chan with its current default JS helper settings expands image on click to fit width at most. (You can still middle-click to open it in a new tab and pan around scrutinizing every last pixel if you want.)
>>
No. 70975 ID: 19b3c3

>>70974
Really? Weird, I didn't notice the template special casing. And they seem to still work with the rare images that are actually smaller than the default thumbnail sizes.

I wouldn't object to forcing some kind of max size on expanded images in thread to keep things readable. (Although I expand every image in tabs anyways).
>>
No. 70980 ID: 2f4b71

If you don't want to expand-all, you can click the filename to expand or contract individual images.
>>
No. 70987 ID: d6ae01

So one thing that could be looked into is setting a max for how big images are depending on the browser window?

Setting all images to 250x250 could work, too. I mean, also consider that it's not actually 250x250 but whatever the aspect ratio of your image is, such that 250 is the max one direction can go. Or something. thumbnail shenanigans are why the spoiler image gets stretched all over the place.

poor jiniki
>>
No. 71007 ID: e213ec

413x379
>>
No. 71011 ID: 4295c8

>>70969
Ha, almost correct^^

My script has many modules, each one can be seperate switched off and on, from which one is able to mage the thumgs larger on mousehover.
If it's possible the images are shown in original size. If the Window is to small however, it is scaled down to 95% of the browser-window. That's so you can still hover out at the sides.

I don't really think the thumb's size should be changed at all. whenever using absolute values, the problem comes back with higher resolution and at some point becomes a problem for people with 800*600. Dynamic size would maybe make it better, but probably mess up any tool or addon that is trying to make text-size/images bigger...
>>
No. 71020 ID: d6ae01

We could try to get really fancy with the ability to set your own thumbnails, but I'm starting to lean towards the idea of making expanded images more appealing so it's a much better option to hit "expand all" even at lower resolutions or if the quest uses 2000x2000 images.
>>
No. 71022 ID: 4a20fa

>>70975
They can't actually do anything conditional since they don't know the size, but while it's been a long time now I seem to remember I had to faff about with the sizing to make things look OK with either.
>>
No. 71027 ID: 40583d

The only real problem with expand all, IMO, is authors that scan pictures without resizing them. If it took, say, TWO clicks to expand images to full size, with the first expanding then to MIN(image_width, window_width), it might be less of an issue.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason